Budget Deal Leaves Unanswered Questions

Before Congress left town for its August recess, the House and Senate passed a much-celebrated budget deal.

The implication was that members of Congress (who no longer seem to care about the deficit or debt) and President Trump (who never cared about it at all), struck a deal that settled all spending decisions for the next two years.

But as with most things in Washington, things are not what they seem at first glance.

Yes, the deal sets spending limits for the next two years and raises the debt ceiling for the same amount of time. The debt limit increase was needed to ensure that the federal government doesn’t default on its obligations.

But that’s all this so-called big deal accomplished.

Some said it appeared the deal would help avoid another government shutdown.

It doesn’t.

When Congress returns, the House and Senate still must decide how much each federal program will receive for FY20.

For instance, how much will the Community Development Financial Institutions program receive in the next fiscal year?

Trump wants to kill the program, but Congress has made it clear that’s not going to happen. Even Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin seemed resigned to the program continuing, telling a House appropriations subcommittee that the administration might have to reevaluate its opposition in light of widespread support on Capitol Hill.

What about Pell Grants?

Or Community Development Block Grants?

Or defense programs?

Yeah, and what about THAT WALL?

So far, the House has passed 10 of its 12 funding measures, with several of them combined into one bill. The Senate has not started its appropriations process, and is presumably waiting for the budget deal to divide up the money for the appropriations bills.

So, the big – and small – decisions are far from being made, and the possibility still remains that Congress and the president won’t agree on funding those programs by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 and much of the government could shut down again.

Of course, the NCUA won’t shut down because credit unions fund it and the CFPB won’t close up shop because it gets its money from the Federal Reserve.

But the threat of a government shutdown still looms large.

Still, some important decisions appear to have been made. For instance, it looks like the appropriations bills are unlikely to contain any “poison pill” legislative riders.

House Republicans were notorious for trying to loan up the Financial Services funding measure with a bunch of provisions attempting to rein in one of their favorite targets – the CFPB.

Every time they did that, Senate Republicans roundly rejected them.

This year, since Democrats control the House, the House-passed Financial Services funding bill doesn’t include that language.

This year, the Appropriations Committee report on the Financial Services funding measure merely states, “The Committee directs the CFPB to take aggressive action to protect consumers and thoroughly assess any potential changes in CFPB rules and regulations to ensure that consumers are not unduly harmed.”

Nothing too objectionable, but still likely to be dropped when the final Financial Services bill is produced.

About That Budget Deal

Way back in 1997, Republicans were deficit hawks and Democrats resisted cutting spending too much for their favorite programs.

Still, the two sides, after a great deal of fighting, produced a deal that pretty much balanced the federal budget, a goal that budgeteers said was necessary for the economic health of the nation.

That kind of thinking appears to have been abandoned. This year’s budget deal was passed by a wide margin in the House and Senate.

Even before the deal was reached, the Congressional Budget Office reported the federal deficit for FY19 was $896 billion.

If a balanced budget was needed for the fiscal health of the nation, wouldn’t an $896 billion deficit place the country on life support?

Apparently not, according to Congress, which seems to have decided that fiscal restraint is no longer necessary.

Cruel and Unusual?

Remember Tony Georgiton?

Probably not. You’d have no reason to recall him.

He’s the taxi broker who is accused of bribing former Melrose Credit Union President/CEO Alan Kaufman in exchange for lots of loans.

Well, he and Kaufman are out on bail and their travel is restricted. Any travel must be approved by a federal judge.

Which brings us to the unique request Georgiton made recently. It seems Georgiton is a lifelong fan of the New York Jets – a National Football League team, for the uninitiated.

Years ago, Georgiton filed an application for season tickets to the Jets games, which are played at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., according to documents filed by his attorneys in federal court.

Georgiton finally got his tickets in 2009 and has attended almost all of the games with his son, his attorneys said.

The problem is that Georgiton lives in New York, and the Jets, despite their name, play their games in New Jersey.

And so, Georgiton asked U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to leave his home in New York, travel to the stadium, watch the game and return home.

Kaplan agreed, although it appears to me that agreeing to the trips might violate federal law.

After all, the Jets’ record last season was 4-12.

They stunk.

Now, this year, the Jets have new uniforms and made some off-season moves in an effort to improve that record. Still, nobody’s predicting a total turnaround for the team during the upcoming season.

Seems to me that allowing Georgiton to go to the Jets games might be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

David Baumann is a correspondent-at-large for CU Times. He can be reached at dbaumann@cutimes.com.